Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

237 replies

lougle · 19/11/2016 13:05

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

OP posts:
CaesiumTime · 20/11/2016 10:34

Haha, yes, milk its true. Wink

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 20/11/2016 10:28

I also think that generally people only want consistency if it is consistently in their favour!

CaesiumTime · 20/11/2016 10:24

Upthread I said that more consistency would be good. However, after the evolution of this thread I completely change my mind. MNHQ you are doing a difficult job and consistency would ruin the spirit of the site. Life just isn't black and white.

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead."

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

Consistency is a virtue for trains:

I don't even really know what "being consistent" would mean. There has to be the use of discretion.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 20/11/2016 10:22

Re-read your thread title lougle. It's not an innocent question at all, it's not feedback. It's asking them to explain themselves. Why do you think you have the right to do that? Especially after Justine's "this is how we do it like it or lump it" thread.

ErrolTheDragon · 20/11/2016 10:18

A thread in Site Stuff is perfectly appropriate to discuss this, I agree with you there.

Silver - I'm not sure PL would be a fair comparison. Does anyone want to have a shot at a similar poem about a high profile left-wing politician- jeremy corbyn or putin maybe?

Original poster
lougle · 20/11/2016 10:12

Milk I disagree. I started a thread in Site Stuff, not AIBU. This is about Site Stuff. In their moderation thread, MNHQ said 'The last thing we're saying is that we don't want feedback'. I also reported my thread, saying that I'd appreciate MNHQ comment.

I think that's an appropriate way to deal with this.

OP posts:
MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 20/11/2016 10:00

After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right.

But that's not what your thread is doing is it. It's telling MNHQ that you want/expect them to explain themselves and you don't have the right to do that.

Justine had made it VERY clear how they moderate/don't moderate this site.

It's time to stop all these threads now. If you think MNHQ are wrong, contact them directly like a grown up. Enough of the foot-stamping "Miss! Miss! It's not faaaaaaiiiiiir! Johnny got to do his thing!"

SilverNightFairy · 20/11/2016 09:47

Clearly, MN caters to the left. Try writing a similar poem about Paris Lees and see what happens...

WellErrr · 20/11/2016 09:29

don't tell me to find somewhere else if I don't like it. After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right. I'm not asking for rigid black and white rules. Just some consistency.

I'm not telling you to do anything.
But they don't have rigid, black and white moderation rules here, and they never have; therefore, if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it here. And there ARE other forums which do have that rigid consistency.

Original poster
lougle · 20/11/2016 09:24

I don't know, NDT...it seems more random of late. Sure, in the past you might not like their rules, but you could see their rules and you'd know damned well what would get a deletion and what wouldn't. Hence people typing things in certain formats to avoid deletions. Now it seems to be 'we'll delete stuff that we think will make us unpopular or give us hassle and keep anything that might get us clicks or feature in the Daily Mail' Sad

OP posts:
NotDavidTennant · 20/11/2016 09:13

OP, MNHQ have always made up the moderation policy as they go along. Most likely they will always make up the moderation policy as they go along. If you're someone who likes clarity and consistency in the rules you will find this annoying, but the reality is that no amount of complaining has ever made them change the way they do things, and I'm sure no amount of complaining ever will.

Original poster
lougle · 20/11/2016 09:10

WellErrr I first heard of PL when I read the moderation thread. I had to look her up on the MN blogfest page then google her - I'd never heard of her. I didn't mean that I had to google her after starting this thread - that would clearly be stupid!

And don't tell me to find somewhere else if I don't like it. After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right. I'm not asking for rigid black and white rules. Just some consistency.

OP posts:
Saucery · 20/11/2016 09:05

If I wrote something about a public figure and it was reported and MNHQ deemed it a Personal Attack then they could delete it. I might have a minute's moan to myself and I'd be a bit peeved if it led to a Ban or suspension
I wouldn't flounce because of it, because the alternative is a site solely talking about prams, recipes and sleep routines

Flingmoo · 20/11/2016 09:03

Okay, well I disagree, Donald Trump is so deplorable that I see no problem with giving it a seal of approval.

Regardless, I actually disagree that putting a thread in Classics is a 'seal of approval' anyway. The penis beaker thread went into Classics didn't it? Do you think that means MNHQ advocate dunking your dick in a cup after shagging? No, it means some people found it funny, some people hated it, and it gets chucked in Classics to look back on and either laugh at or loathe.

WellErrr · 20/11/2016 08:54

Mumsnet isn't school.
It isn't your place of work.
It's not government run.
It's not council run.

You don't seem to understand this, but Justine has explained it all at length.
The rules are not black and white.
There will be inconsistencies, BECAUSE they do apply common sense. That's how it works. And it DOES work.

If you don't like it, then you don't have to stay. Different strokes and all that - I personally find the common sense approach refreshing. Do I always agree with MNHQ's decisions? No. But I wouldn't have it any other way because I am a huge believer in common sense, and I hate censorship.

If you want rigid rules, then you'll have to try elsewhere, as they just don't have them here.

And give over with the 'I don't know who PL is' guff. Why would you have written the OP if that were the case?

Original poster
lougle · 20/11/2016 08:45

Mamushka I'm using plain English. What bothers me is that MNHQ have promoted this poem to classics, when it is a direct personal attack on a public figure. I don't think they should be endorsing a direct personal attack on a public figure.

I think that promoting something to classics is giving it a seal of approval in a way that just ignoring its presence (ie. turning a blind eye) doesn't. I wouldn't have had an issue with them just 'not seeing it'. But I think that to actively approve it is wrong.

OP posts:
Flingmoo · 20/11/2016 08:31

If this is not about Donald Trump, what is it precisely about this example of moderation that bothers you then? Your problem is purely with the inconsistency? The rules should be flexible and allow for common sense to reign. These are not legally binding rules, MNHQ are not high court judges Hmm MN would be a joyless place if every written rule is strictly enforced to point of absurdity.

Original poster
lougle · 20/11/2016 08:16

No, this is not about Paris Lee. This isn't really even about Donald Trump. Or . This is about parity in the moderation of posts about public figures.

I don't see how you can on one hand delete posts saying 'this public figure says really nasty things about women and is a misogynyst' and not two weeks later promote to classics a poem that says 'YOU public figure say really nasty things about women, you're a nasty misogynyst, you are a curse, short-sighted scrote, blistering canker, self serving shit and lying gobshite'.

It doesn't gel. It isn't consistent. It isn't logical.

I don't care where MNHQ draw the line - it's their site. But that line has to be drawn in such a way that a poster has a good idea before they post whether they are at risk of deletion for it. Then they can decide whether they feel that it's worth taking the risk.

It just isn't fair, IMO, to delete some posters' posts because they contain PAs about public figures and then promote to classics a direct, sustained PA on a public figure because he is widely scorned and it is written with a humorous turn of phrase.

If you want to think this is about Paris Lee, go ahead. Advance search my posting history for my most extensive posts on the subject. You won't find them because I had to google PL to find out who she was.

If you want to think this is about Donald Trump, go ahead. Advance search my posting history for my most extensive posts on the subject. You won't find them because I haven't posted about the election result in any significant way.

This is about MNHQ's moderation, plain and simple.

OP posts:
MistressMerryWeather · 20/11/2016 06:17

Ah, but your purpose was clear Dione.

I'll add one too.

Shiny Dave was indeed a great arsehole
Though he's better than Trump
He's fucked off and left us with Nigel and Co
In this mess while he sits on his rump

The numptycunt couldn't be buggered or fecked
To find his kids when he left his posh pub
His glistening brow was wet and sweat-flecked
When he tried to explain the hub-bub

His fondness for pork almost wrecked and destroyed
His fucked-up political career

That's when Sams brilliant plan was deployed
And she said 'Now Dave, Listen here!'

'You red-faced shit
You king of cunt-men
You greasy haired git
Let's leave number ten!'

So, delighted, elated by the mad Brexit mob
They vanished without even a trace
Samantha now has a terrible job
Of fixing Daves fucked up, red face

DioneTheDiabolist · 20/11/2016 01:13

It's never going to make it into Classics, but I'm no Squishy.Blush I'll report it now Errol to see what happens.

ErrolTheDragon · 20/11/2016 00:12

Not rhymey, scanny or sweary enough to be amusing (but better than I could do) but I'll stand witness to it being relatively innocuous if its deleted. Did you report yourself?

DioneTheDiabolist · 20/11/2016 00:05

An Experiment.

David Cameron is a cunt,
Who really messed us up.
He gambled our future for his career.
He lost and has now fucked off.AngrySad

MistressMerryWeather · 19/11/2016 23:57

Oh right, sorry it read like you did.

To be fair to HQ I have seen very few things get deleted regarding David Cameron and there have been a lot of shite flung in his direction.

I doubt a sweary poem such as this one would get zapped.

ZackyVengeance · 19/11/2016 23:50

no who would?

MistressMerryWeather · 19/11/2016 23:49

Wait, you did or you didn't post something about his child, Zacky?

Swipe left for the next trending thread